Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life on the Old Plantation
Intellectual Conservative ^ | 28 October 2003 | La Shawn Barber

Posted on 10/28/2003 9:31:57 AM PST by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 10/28/2003 9:31:58 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This lady has it figured out. Great article - thanks for the post.
2 posted on 10/28/2003 9:39:07 AM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I have never heard of this writer. I hope she writes more and is published. Good article!
3 posted on 10/28/2003 9:43:44 AM PST by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

A freelance writer and former liberal, La Shawn's work has appeared in the Washington Post, Washington Times, and Philadelphia Inquirer, among others.
4 posted on 10/28/2003 9:47:38 AM PST by presidio9 (gungagalunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Your link to the original article is invalid. Would you please post a working link to the original article?

Thanks.
5 posted on 10/28/2003 10:06:53 AM PST by jimkress (America has become Soviet Union Lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
“I take these differences [light skin vs. dark skin, young vs. old] and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South…. The Black Slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.” Terry McAuliffe's great great great great great great grandfather?
6 posted on 10/28/2003 10:32:32 AM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Racist "Liberals" want to keep intellegent blacks down bump!
7 posted on 10/28/2003 10:35:54 AM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
The link works for me. Try this one
8 posted on 10/28/2003 10:41:00 AM PST by presidio9 (gungagalunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This is what your link yields:

404 page not found
- The server cannot find the requested URL

To return to our main page click here.
To visit iPowerWeb please click here.

Hosted by

9 posted on 10/28/2003 12:07:16 PM PST by jimkress (America has become Soviet Union Lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
Nope. They both work for me. I just tried them. Alternatively you could just go to

intellectualconservative.com

Hope that helps...
10 posted on 10/28/2003 12:15:06 PM PST by presidio9 (gungagalunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; mhking
I'm almost speechless. Ms. Barber has eloquently written some mighty big truths in this editorial. She has surely had to fight the plantation (and ghetto) mentality all her life because she is an intelligent person who happens to be black and conservative. (like our very own mhking)

I imagine there are many others who are battling this method of the Dims and white liberals. I hope they come forward and speak out in one big voice loud enough to stop a future filibuster of Janice Brown.

11 posted on 10/28/2003 12:34:48 PM PST by arasina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

12 posted on 10/28/2003 12:39:47 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
As I said before, I watched her hearing and I think she was well spoken and defended herself on many fronts but she had trouble explaining her public statements. Her public statements are that of an ultra and not a compassionate conservative. She can feel what she likes but she is going to be living in a city where there are a lot of black people that are going to be that she does not understand that old expression "There but for the grace of God, go I!"

As I said before, her judicial record is defensible and could be considered the record of a compassionate conservative but the public statements about the role and effect of government take her a little too far to the right... I agree with many of her points but I know she is going to be seen by too many as having forgotten where she came from...

I know attorneys and judges in LA and several other places that are just as well spoken and conservative but they do not have the problem she has of public statements that appear to not appreciate anything that government has done and criticizes all of it's failures....

This makes some question whether she did one of two things. Did she make such conservative statements so that she would be supported and elevated by the Republican Leadership or does she feel that she has to be like Clarence Thomas and go so far to the right (Unlike Colin Powell) so that she could be shown as a staunch conservative. The one thing that no one can question is her commitment to conservative ideals and worry that she will turn out like Justice Stephens....

13 posted on 10/28/2003 1:34:43 PM PST by dwd1 (M. h. D. (Master of Hate and Discontent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Excellent article...BTTT!!

FReegards...MUD

14 posted on 10/28/2003 2:00:56 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
In 1712, Lynch (from whom the term “lynching” derived) delivered a speech on the banks of the James River in Virginia and shared his secrets to keeping slaves in line. One of his methods was to . . . .

this is an urban legand.

The link. http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/ht20030929lynch.asp

Willie Lynch is Dead (1712?-2003)
There are many problems with this document — not the least of which is the fact that it is absolutely fake.

I long ago stopped listening to sentences that begin with "The problem with black people is," or end with "and that's why black people can't get ahead now," which partly explains my initial indifference to the now-famous William Lynch Speech.

The letter was never "discovered." It just showed up on the Internet one day.

In the few years since the speech on how to train slaves first appeared, it has been cited by countless college students and a black member of the House of Representatives, along the way becoming the essential verbal footnote in barbershop analysis of what's wrong with black people. The rapper Talib Kweli laments on the song "Know That," "blacks are dyin'/how to make a slave/by Willie Lynch is still applyin'," and one professor at a Midwestern university made the speech required reading for her class. Of late, the frequency of its citations seems to be increasing — at least three people have asked me about it in the last month.

According to the speech's preface, Master Lynch was concerned enough with the fortunes of his slave-holding brethren in the American colonies to present a lecture on the bank of the James River, explaining how to keep unruly servants disunited. The old, he argued, should be pitted against the young, the dark against the light, the male against the female and so on. Such disunifying tactics "will control the slaves for at least 300 years," he guaranteed. And that, it seems, is why black people can't get ahead now.

There are many problems with this document — not the least of which is the fact that it is absolutely fake.

As a historian, I am generally skeptical of smoking guns. Historical work, like forensic science, isn't some flashy field — it depends on the painstaking aggregation of facts that lead researchers to the most likely explanation, but rarely the only one. Slavery was an incredibly complex set of social, economic and legal relations that literally boiled down to black and white. But given the variation in size of farms, number of enslaved workers, region, crops grown, law, gender-ratios, religion and local economy, it is unlikely that a single letter could explain slave policy for at least 151 years of the institution and its ramifications down to the present day.

Considering the limited number of extant sources from 18th century, if this speech had been "discovered," it would've been the subject of incessant historical panels, scholarly articles and debates. It would literally be a career-making find. But the letter was never "discovered." Rather, it simply "appeared" on the Internet — bypassing the official historical circuits and making its way directly into the canon of American racial conspiratoria.

On a more practical level, the speech is filled with references that are questionable if not completely inaccurate. Lynch makes reference to an invitation reaching him on his "modest plantation in the West Indies." While this is theoretically possible — the plantation system was well established in the Caribbean by 1712 — most plantation owners were absentees who chose to remain in the colonizing country while the day-to-day affairs of their holdings were run by hired managers and overseers. But even assuming that Mr. Lynch was an exception to this practice, much of the text of his "speech" remains anachronistic. Lynch makes consistent reference to "slaves" — which again is possible, though it is far more likely people during this era would refer to persons in bondage simply as "Negroes." In the first paragraph, he promises that "Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented," but the word "program" did not enter the English language with this connotation until 1837 — at the time of this speech it was used only to reference a written notice for theater events.

Two paragraphs later he says that he will "give an outline of action," for slave-holders; the word "out-line" had appeared only 50 years earlier and at that time was only used as an artistic term meaning a sketch — it didn't convey its present meaning until 1759. Even more damning is his use of the terms "indoctrination" and "self-refueling" in the next sentence. The first word didn't carry it current connotation until 1832; the second didn't even enter the language until 1811 — a century after the purported date of Lynch's speech. More obviously, Lynch uses the word "Black," with an upper-case "B," to describe African Americans more than two centuries before the word came to be applied as a common ethnic identifier.

In some popular citations, Lynch has also been — inexplicably — credited with the term "lynching," which would be odd since the speech promises to provide slave-holders with non-violent techniques that will save them the expense of killing valuable, if unruly, property. This inaccuracy points to a more basic problem in understanding American history: the violence directed at black people in America was exceptional in the regard that it was racialized and used to reinforce political and social subordination, but it was not unique. Early America was incredibly violent in general — stemming in part from the endemic violence in British society and partly from the violence that tends to be associated with frontier societies. For most of its history, lynching was a non-racial phenomenon — in fact, it most often directed at white people. The term "Lynch law" was derived from the mob violence directed at Tories, or British loyalists, just after the American Revolution. While there is disagreement about the precise origins of the term — some associate it with Charles Lynch, a Revolution-era Justice-of-the-Peace who imprisoned Tories, others see it as the legacy of an armed militia founded near the Lynche River or the militia captain named Lynch who created judicial tribunals in Virginia in 1776 — there is no reference to the term earlier than 1768, more than half a century after the date given for the speech.

Given the sparse judicial resources (judges were forced to travel from town-to-town hearing cases, which is where we get the term "judicial circuit") and the frequency of property crimes in the early republic, lynching was often seen as a form of community justice. Not until the 1880s, after the end of Reconstruction, did "lynching" become associated with African Americans; gradually the number of blacks lynched each year surpassed the number of whites until it became almost exclusively directed at black people late in the century. (Nevertheless, between 1882 and 1944, Tuskegee University recorded 3,417 lynchings with black victims -- and 1291 lynchings with white ones.)

The Willie Lynch speech would seem to give a quick-and-easy explanation of the roots of our much-lamented "black disunity." You could make similar arguments about the lingering effects of a real historical document like the 1845 tract, "Religious Instruction of Negroes" — written by a proslavery Presbyterian minister — or the British practice of mixing different African ethnicities on slave ships in order to make communication — and therefore rebellion — more difficult. But this too is questionable — it presumes that whites, or any other diverse group, do not face divisive gender issues, generation gaps and class distinctions. Willie Lynch offers no explanation for the white pro-lifer who guns down a white abortion-provider or white-on-white domestic violence. He does not explain political conflicts among different Latino groups or crime in Asian communities. Unity is not the same as unanimity and in the end, black people are no more disunited than any other group of people — and a lot more united than we give ourselves credit for.

First published: September 29, 2003
About the Author
William Jelani Cobb is a professor of history at Spelman College.

15 posted on 10/28/2003 2:55:08 PM PST by jokar (Beware of the White European Male Christian theological complex !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Well I for one like her and I am tired of the Administration complaining about the dems tactics. While deplorable they are just politics and so far the administration has either been outmaneuvered or folded. Its time to take a stand. If they can’t get a nomination through at the lower appellate level what’s going to happen when one of the supremes comes open?

We defeated Afghanistan and Iraqi so what’s the frigin problem here? A few uppity dems in the minority should not be able to subvert the constitution. Time for the administration to fish or cut bate. BTW Great article.

16 posted on 10/28/2003 2:56:34 PM PST by usurper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
BTTT
17 posted on 10/28/2003 3:08:23 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwd1
Your contribution and view are interesting.

”Her public statements are that of an ultra and not a compassionate conservative.”

Whenever I hear generalities like this I always want to hear the specifics. What are her “ultra” statements? And who defines the mainstream? If you – as a self identified black – assume that the beliefs of the black community define the mainstream, you may wish to re-examine your assumptions.

You then question Justice Brown’s honesty; implying that she really does not believe what she is saying, she’s just taking her positions to get favors from Republicans. In a State that is overwhelmingly Liberal and from a race that is even more overwhelmingly tied to the Democrats, that kind of reasoning seems to be on a par with the overwhelming black belief in the myth of the church burnings during the Clinton administration.

I hope I’m wrong, but I detect a whiff of paranoia.

18 posted on 10/28/2003 5:19:19 PM PST by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I am impressed with your attempts to label me and make this about race. The hardest thing about being conservative is having to explain to people that I have my own mind. I see those too far to the left and those too far to the right operating from a list of assumptions.

My congratulations to you for proving the point.

I can only speak my opinion based on what I perceive the truth to be. Please tell me if the purpose of this forum has changed.

To the specifics, please refer to her speeches to the federalist society and come up with your own conclusion.

As I stated before, her problem seems to be that of the inconsistency between her public statements and her record on the bench. My opinion and apparently that of several others.

"where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property, the precipitous decline of the rule of law, the rapid rise of corruption, the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit."

19 posted on 10/28/2003 9:06:30 PM PST by dwd1 (M. h. D. (Master of Hate and Discontent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jokar
According to the speech's preface, Master Lynch was concerned enough with the fortunes of his slave-holding brethren in the American colonies to present a lecture on the bank of the James River, explaining how to keep unruly servants disunited. The old, he argued, should be pitted against the young, the dark against the light, the male against the female and so on. Such disunifying tactics "will control the slaves for at least 300 years," he guaranteed. And that, it seems, is why black people can't get ahead now

I would generally buy your story. Rather than play all these relatively subtle psychological games appropriate for a kinder age, two other simpler methods were more often used. One, which comes directly from the Romans, was to appoint 'trustees' to manage the rest of the slaves. Trustees were often given their own residence of a better quality and used as overseers and managers to control the rest.

The second method was much simpler. That was to single out the most 'uppity' and either beat him severely, disfigure him, or, if need be, simply kill him. In the latter case, most states compensated the slave owner for his efforts by refunding him the purchase price of this property.

As for Lynch, it is hard to say as Lynch is a very common name, and there have certainly been more than one judge. Besides, a lynching does not require a judge in any case, so the name could have been derived from a non-judge just as readily.

20 posted on 10/28/2003 9:17:09 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson